COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT
BY: DAVID NICHOLS
The purpose of any union, as defined under federal law, is to allow employees to band together so as to have economic power enough to effectively bargain with employers over a wide range of issues. A number of important issues are considered mandatory subjects of bargaining under the law, meaning that employers must negotiate in good faith over these subjects. Mandatory subjects of bargaining include wages, benefits and working conditions
1) WAGES – Few would argue that union workers make more money than their non-union counterparts. Even Right Wing nuts usually concede this, although they will generally argue that the difference is only about 15% between union and nonunion workers. The AFL-CIO argues that the difference is more like 25%. Wikepedia states that the average gap between union and non-union wages since the 1970s has varied by 21%-32%. Whatever the actual numbers, Union workers do make more. The wages of workers here at B-way of Memphis seem to fit the pattern. In short we are being paid about three quarters of what we would have been making had we been organized into a strong, effective union for a decade or so.
It is also worth noting that 93% of all union contracts make provisions for daily overtime as opposed to the weekly overtime after 40 hours as mandated by law. I can state from personal experience that this difference has a significant effect on take-home pay if very much overtime is worked at all.
2) BENEFITS– As is the case with wages, union benefits are substantially better. Again there is some debate on how much better, but estimates generally fall within the 25%-40% range. Nowhere is this difference more apparent than in the area of healthcare benefits. Union workers generally pay less for healthcare insurance out of their own pockets and indeed some strong unions have been able to maintain the old tradition of having employers pay 100% of health insurance premiums. Even where this is not the case, under union contracts, companies are usually not able to pass on increases in annual health insurance cost to employees during the term of the bargaining agreement. They must wait to do so at the bargaining table where they are typically quite fiercely resisted.
Retirement plans of Union and nonunion also differ significantly. Nearly all non-union plans are now 401k type investment plans. While they can offer retirement security in economic good times, these plans are still essentially “playing the market.” Most union contracts still have defined benefit level pension plans that are safer and better protected under law. Union workers retiring under these plans do not have to delay their retirement due to a slump in the market or suffer a serious retiree income reduction should they choose not to.
Other benefits such as dental care, vision, life insurance, vacations, holidays, leaves of absence, and vocational/educational assistance, are all also mandatory subjects of bargaining. Where they are not what they should be, union workers have the ability to address the deficiencies, provided that they have courage and solidarity enough to ensure that their demands are duly heeded.
3) WORKING CONDITIONS – The phrase “working conditions” under NLRB definitions includes a wide variety of topics related to daily work life. Rather than try to list them all here I have instead undertaken to give a few examples that relate specifically to the Memphis B-Way plant and to suggest the type of changes that might reasonably be made through a Union.
Grievance/Arbitration procedure – Union contracts almost always have well spelled out grievance procedures within them that an employee can use to address any grievance he/she believes the company may have inflicted upon him/her. Typically these procedures involve three or four steps with meetings at each step and with increasingly higher levels of managerial authority and union representation becoming involved at defined steps along the way. At each level it is hoped that the grievance may be settled fairly and reasonably, but if is not in the eyes of the affected employee and the union, it will be continued to the next step. If the matter goes through all the steps (typically Department Head, Human Resources and Plant Manager levels) and no satisfactory resolution to the issue is found and the Union believes that it has suitable contractual or other legal grounds, it has the right to take the matter to an impartial third party Arbitrator for a binding decision.
“Just Cause” Standards of Discipline – In 1964 arbitrator Carroll Daugherty established the following seven tests of “just cause” for the disciplining of employees. Over the years they have become the standard by which discipline is judged in nearly all unions showing any willingness to arbitrate violations. It is important to note that these criteria only relate to union shops. Nonunion workers in many states, including Tennessee, are subject to the “At will” doctrine of employment law, that says that employers may pretty much do what they like in regards to discipline and terms and conditions of employment. Under this doctrine employees may even be permanently discharged with no stated reason whatsoever, provided employers do not violate other (mostly federal) employment laws.
Here are the seven tests of just cause:
- Was the employer’s rule or order reasonably related to efficient and safe operations?
- Was the employee adequately warned of the consequences of his conduct?
- Did management investigate before administering the discipline?
- Was the investigation fair and objective?
- Did the investigation produce substantial evidence or proof of guilt?
- Were the rules, orders, and penalties applied evenhandedly and without discrimination? ( this tends to be the one that most often gets management into trouble.)
- Was the penalty reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the past record?
I think it is fairly apparent to most of us who have ever not been “in the clique” at a given workplace how much of an advantage it is to have these objective standards of discipline. It helps take the personalities out of the process, and offers a much better chance of fairness and workplace justice.
Scheduling – The B-way Memphis plant has the dubious distinction of having the most hap hazard work schedules that I have ever encountered in all of the facilities I have had dealings with over the years. If I were a shop steward or a business agent of a union operating here, the first thing I would ask at the start of any grievance meeting concerning attendance would be to see the weekly schedule the employee was scheduled under. When they produced a schedule from two months previous we would have a definite problem, right up to arbitration if so required.
Aside from requiring of management the courtesy of actually posting real schedules, a union might also improve scheduling in a couple of ways with contract language. A requirement that schedules be posted a few days in advance is fairly standard for example. Another improvement might be language that said that changes could be not be made in the schedule without, say 72 hour notice, except by the mutual consent of management and the effected employee(s). It would help remind them, production requirements not withstanding, that they don’t actually own us and that the events in our lives are as significant to us as the events in their own lives are to them.
Attendance/Missed Punch policy – While I would not call the attendance policy here at B-way particularly “harsh”, a few improvements could likely be made to it through bargaining or perhaps simply through “discussions” with a union. Recognition of positive attendance behavior in the form of a point being deducted for every two or three months of perfect attendance might be an improvement for example. The separation of the attendance policy and some kind of “time clock” policy for dealing with missed punches and other time clock issues might also be highly desirable to all parties. Not only would it remove the injustice of having employees penalized under the attendance policy for time actually worked as scheduled, it might also help the company avoid certain entanglements under the standards of the Wage and Hourly Division of the U.S. Department of Labor.
40 hour Guarantee – Most Union contracts have provisions for ensuring that full-time employees continue to draw full time checks even if corporate executives decide that it might be useful towards helping them achieve their bonus compensation if plants are shut down for a week or two, over say the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. Contract language to the effect of “All regular, full-time employees shall be guaranteed a minimum of 40 hours of work or pay provided that they are available for scheduled work” is, again, fairly standard in union contracts for hourly workers.
Severance – B-way, like many other companies is very much caught up in the shift to eco-economics that current global environmental conditions are fostering. Steel, as one of the most carbon expensive materials to produce, will continue to increase in price as more and more nations seek to tax or otherwise prohibit carbon emissions. At some point it may not be cost effective to produce disposable containers out of it at all. Likewise, as the oil begins to run out, the production of plastic containers out of petroleum-based plastics may also at some date in the not so distant future no longer be practical. It remains to be seen if B-Way will successfully adapt to these changing eco-economic conditions. Even if they manage to do so, will they accomplish this by reinvesting in existing facilities or will they follow the much more common practice of closing outdated plants and disposing of loyal workers to replace them with “greenfield” facilities and typically “cheaper” labor?
While many companies have severance “policies” and most often abide by them when they close plants they are under no legal obligation to do so without a contractual agreement. All they are required to do under the WARN Act of federal law is provide 60 days notice in the form of either work or pay before shutting down a facility.
Contract language that states a defined severance benefit in dollars or pay hours for every year of service worked is, under most circumstances, legally binding. It is the proverbial bird in the hand that at least gives displaced workers something to fall back on as they try to reconstruct their lives after often economically devastating plant closings.
Now, there is no absolute assurance that any of these working condition “suggestions” would actually make it into a bargaining agreement here at B-Way. It is probably better to consider them as part of my own would-be contract proposals…and hopefully many of you will have your own should we ever get to that point. Still, the ones I have listed here would hardly be seen as unreasonable by most union officials in this nation, and indeed, I would expect a high degree of support for most of them from pretty much any Local or International Union worthy of the title.
Courage & Solidarity 